1. POVERTY AND PESTICIDE USE IN VIETNAM THE CASE OF FARMERS IN RICE PRODUCTION IN THE MEKONG DELTA VIETNAM Khuc Xuyen The Centre of Occupational and Environmental Health, Vietnam Association of Occupational Health Nguyen Huu Dung Environment Economics Unit University of Economics-HCMC SUB-REGIONAL CONFERENCE ON POVERTY ENVIRONMENT NEXUS – LAO PDR June 21-22, 2006

2. HYPOTHESES OF INTEREST Whether the use of hazardous pesticides is more prevalent among poor farmers than in the general farming population; Whether overuse and misuse of pesticides is more prevalent among poor farmers than in the general farming population; Whether poor farmers have less access to information on risk, training for safe handling of pesticides and protective measures than the general farming population; Whether health impairments, that may be attributed to pesticide use, are disproportionately higher for poor farmers.

3. METHODOLOGY Survey of Farmers (pesticide applicators) Survey of Farmers (pesticide applicators) Clinical Exam Clinical Exam Blood and Skin Test Blood and Skin Test Sample selection criteria Sample selection criteria a. According to information from the poverty map of the World Bank, a. According to information from the poverty map of the World Bank, b. Province, district, and communes where rice production is dominant, b. Province, district, and communes where rice production is dominant, c. A geographical distribution of the study sites (i.e. not very close together), c. A geographical distribution of the study sites (i.e. not very close together), d. Selected sites are not located inside a city or center of the district (since the poor may not be the farmers, e.g. jobless people in the city or town). d. Selected sites are not located inside a city or center of the district (since the poor may not be the farmers, e.g. jobless people in the city or town).

4. STUDY SITE STUDY SITE 1. Vinh Hau 2. Binh Hoa 3. Vi Tan 4. Thanh Thang 5. Nhon Hoa Lap 6. Nhi Thanh 7. My Thanh Nam 8. Thanh Binh 9. An Quang Huu 10. Ngai Hung 1 2 3 4 6 5 7 8 9 10

5. Survey findings

6. Spaying Pesticides of the Respondents (%) Income groups InsecticidesFungicidesHerbicidesOthers 192.34 290.1390.3990.6691.05 385.9086.04 86.42 488.00 86.7588.00 577.79 675.3175.5275.6274.79 Group Total85.5685.7085.6185.83

7. Pesticide Use: Amount Mean pesticide application, risk-weighted amount and number of applications by poor/non-poor (kg) *** - Statistically significant at 1% level of significance ** - Statistically significant at 5% level of significance

8. Pesticide Use: Class Mean application of WHO Ia & b and common pesticide classes by poor/non-poor (kg) *** - Statistically significant at 1% level of significance

9. Summary and Conclusions-I Although the poor are currently using smaller amounts of pesticides (as well as on a per hectare basis), they are using relatively more toxic pesticides. Although the poor are currently using smaller amounts of pesticides (as well as on a per hectare basis), they are using relatively more toxic pesticides. By weighting a pesticides’ active ingredient by its degree of lethality (or by the LD 50 value) and categorizing this measure according to the WHO risk classification system, the poor are using a greater percentage of WHO Ia & Ib pesticides. By weighting a pesticides’ active ingredient by its degree of lethality (or by the LD 50 value) and categorizing this measure according to the WHO risk classification system, the poor are using a greater percentage of WHO Ia & Ib pesticides. The non-poor are using a greater amount of carbamates, organophosphates, and pyrethroids. The non-poor are using a greater amount of carbamates, organophosphates, and pyrethroids.

10. Overuse of pesticides Poor farmers have a significantly lower probability of overusing pesticides. Poor farmers have a significantly lower probability of overusing pesticides.

11. Misuse of pesticides: Do farmers use any pesticides recommended for other crops, on rice? Non-poor farmers tended to misuse more often; significant at the 5% level of significance.

12. Farmer’ Perception on the Risk of Exposure to Pesticides Pesticide risk scaleIncome groups 123456 No risk at all 13.917.818.725.021.322.7 Some small risk 27.828.332.126.334.436.1 A small amount of risk 25.329.623.930.024.622.7 A large & significant amount of risk 15.213.814.910.09.812.4 Dangerous & very toxic 15.29.97.5 9.86.2 Do not know 2.5.73.01.30.0

13. Use of protective clothing while using pesticides (%) Non-poor farmers use more protective measures and this is statistically significant at the 10% level.

14. Prevalence of Environment-Friendly Pest Control Measures by poor/non-poor Non-poor farmers were more likely to adopt alternative pest control methods; significant at the 1% level.

15. Summary and Conclusions-II Poor farmers have a significantly lower probability of overusing pesticides. Poor farmers have a significantly lower probability of overusing pesticides. Non-poor farmers are more likely to misuse. Non-poor farmers are more likely to misuse. There is no difference in the level of training among the poor and non-poor. There is no difference in the level of training among the poor and non-poor. Non-poor farmers use more protective measures while handling pesticides. Non-poor farmers use more protective measures while handling pesticides. Non-poor adopted more env.-friendly pest control methods. Non-poor adopted more env.-friendly pest control methods.

16. Health Effects Acute: mild headaches flu-like symptoms skin rashes blurred vision other neurological disorders Chronic: cardiopulmonary problems neurological and hematological symptoms adverse dermal effects

17. Overall Health Effects found in the Survey 98% of the farmers in the survey reported health problems such as irritation in their eyes, headaches, dizziness, vomiting, shortness of breath, skin effects, and even convulsions among others. Among those (respondents) who experienced ailments 82% were quite sure that their ailments were due to exposure to pesticides. The interviews further revealed that 88% of the respondents experienced multiple health effects, with the maximum number of ailments as nine.

18. Specific Health Effects found in the Survey

19. Blood (Cholinesterase Enzyme) Test Results

20. Medical blood tests for the detection of acute and chronic pesticide poisoning, by poor/non-poor (%)

21. Medical skin tests for the detection and reactivity of commonly used pesticides, by poor/non poor (%)

22. Summary and Conclusions-III Health effects of organophosphates and carbamates is serious, in general. Although Blood tests for internal pesticide poisoning showed that the poor had a slightly higher prevalence rate than the non- poor, however this difference was not statistically significant. Suitable averting behavior should be advocated. Pesticide contamination may be pervasive in certain areas. Tests of pesticide residues in surface/ground water and soil is necessary.